|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 25 of 151:
| 
Jun 29 04:57 UTC 2001 |
At this rate, an early prediction of mine -- that cassette will actually be
discontinued before LPs -- may actually bear out.
|
krj
|
|
response 26 of 151:
|
Jun 29 16:09 UTC 2001 |
Beta News reports on a preview they were given of the Real Networks
/MusicNet online distribution system.
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=993552636
"Each MusicNet file will contain code to verify that it may be
played locally or streamed. Upon playback, a central clearinghouse
is contacted to confirm a license has been issued for the song.
If a user does not have the necessary tokens, a notice will appear
prompting for the purchase of more."
As I read the article, it sounds like the playback system requires
a network connection so the software can phone home to see if it
is authorized to play the song file. The user can download song
files freely, but must buy tokens in order to play them.
If I'm right, heaven help them; they have reinvented the Divx system
for DVD licensing, a system which was a spectacular market failure,
almost totally rejected by consumers.
|
krj
|
|
response 27 of 151:
|
Jul 5 02:58 UTC 2001 |
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-07-03-net-radio-usat.htm
"Net Radio Tangos With The Law."
The RIAA is suing a number of "webcasting" firms claiming
that their offerings are more interactive than is allowed
under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Allowing users to
choose what will be streamed to them is a no-no, according
to the RIAA's interpretation of the law.
Lawsuit targets include MTV's SonicNet, Launch, MusicMatch and
Xact. The article says that the RIAA did not take on MSN's
streaming offering, even though it is essentially similar
in functionality to the sued firms.
The article says that most musicians are lining up against the
RIAA this time, in contrast to the Napster suit.
|
brighn
|
|
response 28 of 151:
|
Jul 5 13:57 UTC 2001 |
Of course the RIAA didn't go after MS. It saw what happens when the govt sues
MS, what chance do THEY have?
|
mdw
|
|
response 29 of 151:
|
Jul 6 06:49 UTC 2001 |
It just goes to show the sharks know each other.
|
brighn
|
|
response 30 of 151:
|
Jul 6 13:13 UTC 2001 |
Professional courtesy ("Why don't sharks eat lawyers?" and "Why doesnt the
RIAA sue MSN?")
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 151:
|
Jul 6 18:21 UTC 2001 |
ZDnet has a nice survey article on six foolhardy firms trying to follow
in Napster's footsteps. OK, some of them really aren't "firms."
Let's say, a review of six Napster replacements, plus the state of the
original Napster, which one user now describes as "an elaborate chat
program."
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2782840,00.html
Reviewed are: Aimster, Audiogalaxy, Gnutella, iMesh, OpenNap, and
Kazaa-Music City Morpheus.
|
brighn
|
|
response 32 of 151:
|
Jul 6 19:31 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, somebody today directed me to Morpheus. I would have expected that,
after the nonsense with Napster, any similar site (especially one that claims
to be "better" than Napster explicitly) would have HUGE notices about
copyright infringement... READ THIS READ THIS READ THIS. Instead, it took me
a few minutes to find it, buried several sections below the snake-in-Eden
temptation of "Morpheus has no control over what people share."
|
russ
|
|
response 33 of 151:
|
Jul 7 17:44 UTC 2001 |
Re #28: Plenty of chances. Look what Sun got after going after
M$ for violating the Java license terms.
|
krj
|
|
response 34 of 151:
|
Jul 10 21:24 UTC 2001 |
According to a news story on http://www.mp3.com/news, Napster shut
down on July 3 and it has not returned. The main Napster web page
confirms that "File transfers have been temporarily suspended while
Napster upgrades the databases that support our new file identification
technology. Keep checking this space for updates."
Um, Napster's been turned OFF for a week and I haven't seen a news story
about it until today? Sheesh. I don't think the idea of making
money off the former Napster user base is going to fly, if the
end of Napster's file trading service stirs only a whimper in the
news.
|
krj
|
|
response 35 of 151:
|
Jul 11 04:42 UTC 2001 |
Here's the Cnet story on the disconnection of Napster:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6537921.html?tag=tp_pr
(cue theme music from "JAWS" :) )
"Sources close to the case say that court documents still under
seal have deeply influenced the company's actions over the
past few weeks -- including its decision to go dark rather than
allow filtered trading on its service."
The overall thrust of the story is that the record industry believes
the precedents it has won in the Napster case will allow it quick victories
in the future over other file-trading systems.
The story talks a lot about the impact of "audio fingerprinting" technology
as a means to halt the unauthorized trading of song files. What few
is left unsaid in the article is this: a Napster which effectively
filters unauthorized song files has no reason to exist.
|
krj
|
|
response 36 of 151:
|
Jul 11 20:47 UTC 2001 |
Macrovision says they have a CD copy-prevention system ready to roll out.
No details are available in the two stories I have seen. They claim
you will be able to play the CDs on computer CD-rom drives but not
rip them. ???
http://www.macrovision.com/safeaudio1.html
and a press release at:
http://www.newmediamusic.com/articles/NM01070093.html
|
krj
|
|
response 37 of 151:
|
Jul 12 04:12 UTC 2001 |
From Friday's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/technology/ebusiness/12NAPS.html
Trial court judge Marilyn Patel (remember her? We haven't heard
much from her lately) has ordered Napster to remain shut
down until their filtering system is 100% effective at
preventing the exchange of copyrighted material. Napster
claims its filtering system is 99.4% effective and Patel says
that is not good enough.
Napster will appeal.
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 151:
|
Jul 12 12:32 UTC 2001 |
The filtering system they have at the moment is 100% effective -- nothing
gets through. ;>
|
krj
|
|
response 39 of 151:
|
Jul 12 14:17 UTC 2001 |
What I don't understand is how Patel's order can be congruent with the
appeals court ruling on the preliminary injunction. This seems to be
the order Patel wanted to issue originally, which was substantially
modified under the direction of the appeals court, and now she's gone
back to it.
|
krj
|
|
response 40 of 151:
|
Jul 12 16:37 UTC 2001 |
Longer AP story on the Patel ruling at:
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,45184,00.html
Napster CEO Hank Barry agrees with me that the Patel ruling
goes directly against the appeals court order, and furthermore its
logic makes the operating of any file sharing system impossible.
|
brighn
|
|
response 41 of 151:
|
Jul 12 17:41 UTC 2001 |
I would agree that a 90%+ effective system definitely represents a good faith
effort on the part of the system operators, and should be "good enough."
|
krj
|
|
response 42 of 151:
|
Jul 13 08:06 UTC 2001 |
More detailed stories on the Patel order are popping up everywhere; it was
a closed-door hearing so I guess the leaks are taking a while.
-------
Cnet ran an article Thursday on the growing tussle between libraries
and librarians on the one hand, and the copyright industry on the other.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-6545588-0.html
In a future world where every access to copyrighted material is
controlled by the copyright owner, and charged for, and where material
is routinely destroyed if the user doesn't continue to pay for
it, it's not clear how libraries continue to exist.
Quote:
> What's more, as a rising number of copyright owners and software
> developers turn to licensing models, librarians worry that they'll
> be forced to pay perpetual rent on a product or lose the work--a
> possibility that could endanger the important archival role
> of their institutions.
> "If I buy a book, take care of it, and nobody rips it off, I'll
> still have it 500 years from now," said Jim Neal, dean of
> libraries at Johns Hopkins University. "But if I buy an
> electronic book and don't keep paying for it, it's gone."
Cnet found an inflammatory quote from the Association of American Publishers
comparing some librarians to "Ruby Ridge or Waco types" for wanting to
preserve free access to material for their users.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 43 of 151:
|
Jul 15 14:55 UTC 2001 |
Interesting how those publishers who propably consider Ben
Franklin as part of their heritage, would also brand Ben Franklin
as one of those "Waco types".
|
krj
|
|
response 44 of 151:
|
Jul 18 03:24 UTC 2001 |
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,45279,00.html
Paraphrasing the teaser: MP3 files are easy to use and interoperable
with lots of software and hardware. But -- other than consumers --
no one wants to use the format. :)
The copyright industry has decided that consumer choice and convenience
takes a back seat to making files copy-proof. Software firms have now
decided that they have to make products to appeal to the copyright
industry rather than to consumers. The Napster tale is horrific...:
> Napster, the file-trading service that was the bastion of free,
> downloadable music, has recently become the poster child for
> secure music. On Monday, Napster unveiled more of its plans for
> security, announcing plans for a proprietary digital music player
> that will be used with its new subscription service set to launch
> before the end of summer.
>
> The new service won't allow consumers to move their music
> away from the Napster file-trading network to other media
> players like RealJukebox or Windows Media Player. Instead, the
> service will only play proprietary ".Nap" files on the new player.
> The Napster system will take MP3 files that run through its main
> server and create the new, proprietary format, said Dube.
>
> "Napster is doing this because their chance for survival is to
> leverage the huge volume of MP3s out there," said Dube. "They
> saw this as a business strategy, to leverage all those MP3s out
> there."
I can just see the customers lining up to pay money for restricted-use
files...
|
krj
|
|
response 45 of 151:
|
Jul 18 03:37 UTC 2001 |
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999998
is a story on the previously-mentioned Macrovision system to
prevent CDs from being copied by computer systems. The New Scientist
article has some information on how the system works.
It's still very sketchy.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 151:
|
Jul 18 13:04 UTC 2001 |
Re #44: That's no good. How'm I supposed to use 'em in my portable MP3
player? ;>
Re #45: Wonder if anyone's tried cdparanoia on one of these discs.
I've seen it rip clean audio off discs so scratched up they wouldn't
finish playing in a regular CD player. There's a similarly good
Windows ripper, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
|
polygon
|
|
response 47 of 151:
|
Jul 18 13:19 UTC 2001 |
I'm not interested in proprietary or pay-per-use music files, but that's
probably OK with the recording industry, because I didn't use Napster and
I don't buy CDs in stores, either.
|
krj
|
|
response 48 of 151:
|
Jul 19 02:42 UTC 2001 |
resp:37 and subsequent: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
Judge Patel's order closing Napster until it could show that it was
perfect at preventing the trading of copyrighted files. (No surprise
to this layman; Patel's order seemed to go right against the heart
of the Court of Appeals' previous ruling.) Napster expects to reopen
a form of its service shortly. (You know, we've been discussing this
preliminary injunction for a year now...) The story is covered
in most online news sources so I won't punch in a URL.
|
krj
|
|
response 49 of 151:
|
Jul 19 05:05 UTC 2001 |
Historical essay on copyright as seen by the Founding Fathers: by
Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of a book "Copyrights and Copywrongs:
The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity."
Too long and detailed to summarize.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si=-
|
